A long review with some thoughts. I wanted to watch a few favorite online reviewers and give the movie a second shot to see if I missed anything before I posted a review myself. Many times with really good movies you see things you missed on the first viewing. Small things in the performances, the flow of the story, setting details, and just things that could make you enjoy the movie more. I mentioned in my past post that Get Out didn't surprise me because I heard something about the twist in another movie. That movie was

Ghost in the Shell. People were talking about how they took a Japanese anime character and gave her to a white actress. And even came up with reasons why it didn't matter. Some reviewers were saying Ghost in the Shell was the reverse of Get Out. So going into Get Out, I was thinking what would be the reverse with black and white characters? And from the opening of Get Out, I knew it was going to be a white person taking a black person's body. I guess that is the revelant topic, which is that Hollywood or the world doesn't really care when a white person takes a minority role or anything else.

After the opening I was waiting for how it would play out. If the trip the movie went on would still be worthwhile. I said it about Split recently but these movies with twists have to be good without the twist. That journey towards the twist has to be entertaining. The Burbs plays with the twist. Are the neighbors really murderers? It makes you question it and you aren't sure till the end reveal. Scream has the twist that there are two killers. Although I think in part 2 or maybe 3, I can't remember as I don't like either of those, one of the survivors says only one guy actually killed people. I like the twist in Scream 4. Sinister has a good twist. I think that's one of the best recent horror movies. I've watched Halloween 3 tons of times. That has a tons of good twists with the robots, how the masks work, turning Ellie into a robot, and the final twist. I saw that when I was a kid and it freaked me out. I still watch it to this day.

Overall my thought on my first viewing of Get Out was that it was a lite version of Invasion of the Body Snatchers and I still think so after the second viewing. That the scope didn't appear large enough and that it isn't a really consistent dark horror movie. At times it's a different movie or almost comedy skit with the TSA friend. I didn't like that scene at the police station even though I got it. But all the cops were minorities and they didn't care, which leads me to something I'll mention later on, but still I thought that was strange. Yet it was the whole topic of people don't care about the missing minority. Still a movie like The Burbs is consistent in it's horror comedy theme jumping back and forth almost immediately till the end reveal.

I felt like the Get Out didn't go deep enough with the message though. Some here mentioned Night of the Living Dead with its ending. I saw a review or special on TV which also remarked that Night of the Living Dead has the black guy as the hero. And that he also slaps the hysterical white woman. Two things which would have been considered big deals back then. I like the line when Ben tells Harry that he can be the boss of the basement.

I think the director of Get Out said the movie is about Slavery. I guess that's true to an extent. Slavery is a horrible thing which still goes on today in the world and instead of being properly addressed in the United States was made worse over time by many events. But it's an odd thing in the movie. It's comes off like black people can't be maids or servants of white people anymore. Yet you have black people that are servers in restaurants and are bodyguards for weathly people and moviestars. It's not like there is a law or some unwritten rule that it shouldn't happen. And of course the relationship between the two main characters is front and center.

There were things I caught on the first viewing that I thought should have been explained which on that second viewing were because I missed it or just zoned out on some dialog. As when I watched the first time the mind transfer technique came off as still experimental with the grandparents behavior. Like they are still new to the body swapping. And the parents needed to put them into a default mode around people. Also that the odd behavior at times is just for the sake of the audience. It wasn't the behavior of the original host or grandparents. Like when the grandmother is just standing behind the kitchen door waiting it seems to serve dessert. I don't think she could behave in a more odd way to provoke suspicion. But there is some dialog that says they just finalized the procedure so I guess it makes some sense. Still, I think the movie would have been better if the technique was further along since people are bidding on the boyfriend. And Rose seemed to have many people she enticed into the procedure.

I read on the wiki that there are alternate endings. But the one I read about didn't seem to go far enough. The real ending to get to the heart of the matter would have ended with the boyfriend getting shot. Maybe having one of the cops be a minority that was body swapped. I think the boyfriend was kind of suspect that's why he asked his TSA friend at the end, how did you find me? I read on the wiki that the director changed the alternate ending with the boyfriend getting arrested because of current events with black people getting shot by police. But if a minority cop did it, I think that would have been a scary twist since it is rarely if ever in the news about a minority cop killing a white person. It's always the opposite. That would be a scary twist and give reason for the behavior of minority cops.

I thought Rose was most interesting character as the girlfriend. She's believable right up to the silly clue that the boyfriend happens to stumble across. I thought the grandmother put it there at first for him to see but on second viewing I really don't know as that was a bad part with the clue in the open. But this is the first movie I've seen Allison Williams in. If there is a sequel they should have found a way for her to survive. She is really evil in this movie and plays it so well and then becomes a different character when she puts her hair in a ponytail. I thought the scene with her reseaching her next target was funny. I've met many girls that go after the athletes before.

The other actors are good too. I heard a review mention that the boyfriend is in the Black Mirror TV show. That's a show I still haven't got around to seeing but I heard it's really good. He gives a good performance here as well. At first I thought he was a bit too violent at the end. But then I caught more of the dialog about how the mind transfer technique works and that you are essentially a passenger, enslaved in your own body. Then I thought it's understandable. Also I remembered Bradley Whitford from Cabin in the Woods. So I pretty much assumed bad guy because of his casting.

Some of you are bringing up political correctness in regards to the success of Get Out. I think these days we need to be careful using that term incorrectly or using it at all to hide true feelings. Not to turn this into that political topic that we have on this forum. But we've seen someone in the United States use that same term and then openly consider racists or racist behavior ok. No one who is a decent person would walk or socialize with a racist. Many people in this country have died as civilians and as members of our armed forces fighting racists. Also someone mentioned how it would be bad or something if the roles were switched and I remembered this funny skit with Eddie Murphy.

There are social topics and double standards that aren't discussed that often. I remember another Eddie Murphy scene in Beverly Hills Cop.

Something like scene in the beginning with the two detectives is why I liked the scene where the swapped guy from the opening in Get Out didn't know the fist bump and still tried to shake hands. I thought that was funny. That would go towards the twist that I would do with the minority cop at the end. I always joke to some people that Tiger Woods and others seem like they might fall for the banana in the tailpipe. I guess I'm too old and they don't get it.

But there could have been a really deep discussion from Get Out. The director is the product of a mixed marriage and is married to a white woman. I remember reading that some black people thought President Obama wasn't black enough, another mixed marriage product and that if he wasn't married to a black woman he wouldn't have won the Presidency.

There is some really bad stuff in American history that isn't talked about. And currently we don't have the people in leadership roles to talk about it. Bill Clinton tried to say something about it and I think people thought he was joking or not serious. I saw an article recently where this author said she's like 9% African.

I'm sure no one would be able to tell.

Many of the Founders of this country knew what was going on. A college teacher started some controversy a few years back and brought up race saying you should ask a white person for their background. And I'm sure that's what modern racists mean about when they talk about people taking their women and how they won't be replaced in jobs and other ways. Racism today isn't as clear as the days of Coffy when a white person simply wanted to hang or drag a black person behind a car. I only saw Coffy fairly recently. I didn't know how much it influenced Tarantino's Jackie Brown.

But anyway, I guess I just thought there would be more to Get Out. That the whole town or city would be involved. That there would be more behind the movie like those classic horror movies. That it would leave you with that unsettling feeling. It is a dark theme that a white family that doesn't come off as racist is kidnapping and enslaving people in their own body. And that the girlfriend would provide that level of trust and love to lure a person into the trap. But only recently I saw the original Invasion of the Body Snatchers and that's a really good movie. It's on my list to own. This is probably the last time I'll watch Get Out. I watched it the second time over two days so I wasn't really into it. I guess it's just that journey that I mentioned. I assume the director is making a Twilight Zone reboot because people liked the twist in Get Out and that scene with the boyfriend floating in the stars. But those good Twilight Zone episodes leave you in shock and freaked out thinking about how scary or twisted parts of the world are. I get shivers just remembering my favorite Twilight Zone episodes. At the end of Get Out, I just didn't feel that the scope of what was going on was a big enough threat. And after all at the end, all the family members are dead and it doesn't seem like anyone is continuing what they were doing.

Just saw this last night and loved it. GUESS WHO'S COMING TO DINNER meets THE STEPFORD WIVES totally worked for me. Had the race card not been played, this movie would have just been another forgettable movie about crazy people passing for sane. People who say it isn't scary obviously can't put themselves in a black person's position. The scene with the cop asking for his license made my skin crawl.

I think technically cops can ask everyone in the car for a license if they suspect something. The thing that is more scary is Rose's performance knowing the outcome of the movie. That's what the director pointed out. That cop scene in particular isn't her standing up for her boyfriend like you would assume on first viewing. But something far more sinister. And her knowledge of police behavior is shown at the end scene.

I thought the main theme of the movie was cultural appropriation of black culture by white people and all the issues that brings. That is why this movie was so praised by those outside the horror community and even has Oscar buzz. I have seriously heard people saying it will be nominated for Best Oscar.

Awesome. Before we all chime in with how "over the hype" we are with this film, consider what an achievement it is for a horror film to get this level of recognition. It's a good thing, because it hopefully means more directors and writers will attempt to produce work in this genre.

Had the race card not been played, this movie would have just been another forgettable movie about crazy people passing for sane.

Click to expand...

...and that's not enough, IMO, to be a serious Oscar candidate in any of the categories for which it has been nominated.

With that being said, don't be surprised if Get Out gets shut out in all categories. "#metoo" seems to be the social awareness message of choice at this year's awards ceremonies, and Get Out isn't a good fit for that narrative.

Removal of brain & replacement of another brain = ZERO remembrance of ANY kind. Not to mention hypnosis would NOT work anymore. Flashes, clinking sounds, all would be useless. It's a just a movie, yes we all know. But if your gonna do it right, do it right. Peele got too caught up in trying to have a message, meanwhile he screwed up his own story.

Film would have been more interesting & scary if the "vessels" were 100% the "donors". Not that I remember things garbage. Movie had tons of other odd editing and inconsistencies too. Little dumb details, like phone charging(come on), TSA friend going to cops stupid scene, the intense brawl yet hears the clink from the other room(come on), to the I'm gonna go have a walk upstairs and the entire crowd stops talking...he wasn't even half way up the stairs yet. LOL. The best has to be the taking the picture of the guy at the party which the flash trips him off. Oh, really? You use a flash in broad daylight? So many bad edits, there's tons more. Even the dialog is cringe worthy especially towards the end.

The film is heavily flawed. It's good for what it is, fun entertainment. Definitely not Oscar worthy. Amazed that it even was Golden Globe worthy. It's actually embarrassing it was nominated and I actually hope it wins so we can all watch people trying to explain why it won.

The film is heavily flawed. It's good for what it is, fun entertainment. Definitely not Oscar worthy. Amazed that it even was Golden Globe worthy. It's actually embarrassing it was nominated and I actually hope it wins so we can all watch people trying to explain why it won.

Click to expand...

Agreed. IMO it's only there to appease the PC "diversity quota" bigots and gain some positive PR for the academy. It's a real shame as it diminishes the achievement of genuinely worthy contenders like last years nomination of Moonlight for best picture and best director. It's the same with Greta Gerwig and the best director nomination for "Lady Bird". A best picture nomination for "Lady Bird"? Sure, no doubt. But best director... really? Does anyone really think "Lady Bird" would be on the short list if it wasn't directed by a woman?

Awesome. Before we all chime in with how "over the hype" we are with this film, consider what an achievement it is for a horror film to get this level of recognition. It's a good thing, because it hopefully means more directors and writers will attempt to produce work in this genre.

Click to expand...

I respectfully but totally disagree, and find this an enormous insult to the filmmakers who produced hundreds of vastly superior horror flicks that never got consideration in the past. Once the CONTENT of a film becomes more important than its artistic merit, film criticism morphs into something else entirely. The message from the Academy isn't that they're taking horror more seriously--it's that representation and political correctness make a disreputable genre worthy of praise. That's a very sad message, and one that will result in plenty of cynicism from filmmakers who have done outstanding work in this genre for many years. I'd argue that all four films in Scream Factory's Fessenden box are superior to Get Out, but anyone who championed any of them for Best Picture would have been hauled off by the guys in white coats.

I haven't seen many 2017 horror movies last year, but I wonder if people would have preferred IT or (didn't see it but heard) that Gerald's Game was pretty good instead. Not saying they were "Oscar worthy" either, but imho seem like better picks. Especially if they wanted to throw the horror genre a bone this year.

Keep in mind, the Oscars are very mainstream, so the few dissenting opinions of a handful of hardcore horror fans on a niche genre forum is largely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

Say you watched Gerald's Game on NetFlix, and you think it's more worthy of an Oscar nomination than Get Out. Doesn't matter, because Gerald's Game is not in consideration, as far as I know. The companies behind these movies do an awards campaign, and generally don't bother pushing horror because that doesn't align with the mainstream. Not including Get Out or The Shape Of Water, these are the "for your consideration" movies that could be considered horror: Split, Killing Of A Sacred Deer, mother!, and It. Maybe All I See Is You, but I haven't seen that to verify if it's horror (some of the horror sites did cover it). I'm pretty sure that's about it. And even then, I don't think voters are even required to watch all of those. The Academy has no obligation to "throw the horror genre a bone".

Even within those, maybe you as a horror fan thought Killing Of A Sacred Deer was better than Get Out. But the Beverly Hills housewife voting would probably find Sacred Deer extremely off-putting. I'd bet most of them didn't even watch it. It's a terrific movie, but it's made for a very specific audience.

As for the whole PC / diversity argument... I don't buy it. If they really wanted to, they could have made Mudbound that movie.

Also worth noting, a lot of these movies are made with awards season in mind. I don't see Jordan Peele thinking "we're going for Oscars" while making this, nor do I see Blumhouse having that in mind with a February release date. Aside from Dunkirk in July, the rest of the Best Picture nominees were all released in November / December. It's a pretty remarkable feat, whether you agree or not.

All that said, I don't see it taking home any of the four awards it is nominated for. But I do think it has a shelf life and will be talked about for years to come. "The Sunken Place" has already made its way into zeitgeist.

As for the whole PC / diversity argument... I don't buy it. If they really wanted to, they could have made Mudbound that movie.

Click to expand...

But Mudbound didn't receive the same media attention over the last 6 months or so and therefore wouldn't achieve anything like the level of "PC appeasement" and "positive PR for the academy" as a nomination for Get Out. If you were selecting a movie to nominate primarily for those reasons then clearly Get Out is the only real contender.

I haven't seen it (only just heard of it), but Mudbound sounds like an interesting movie and I'll certainly check it out. Actually it sounds like a much better movie than Get out and maybe that backs up the argument that Get Out was nominated more for its value as a PR/propaganda tool for the academy than for its quality as a movie.

It's a pretty remarkable feat, whether you agree or not.

Click to expand...

I completely agree that its nomination is a "remarkable feat", but I don't think the actual "quality" of the movie played a major role in that feat. To me it seems like the criteria on which the nomination was based had to be different to that used in the judgement of other movies and that acts against the interests of the average movie fan.

I haven't seen many 2017 horror movies last year, but I wonder if people would have preferred IT or (didn't see it but heard) that Gerald's Game was pretty good instead. Not saying they were "Oscar worthy" either, but imho seem like better picks. Especially if they wanted to throw the horror genre a bone this year.

Click to expand...

The Shape of Water, albeit more of a genre crossover, than outright horror, is already throwing the horror genre a bone and a much better film, IMO. It's not as good as Del Toro's Spanish films, but I'm pleased to see that get as many nominations as it has.

I'm a little surprised IT was totally shut out. I don't see it as a Best Picture nominee, but I could've seen it receiving a secondary award nomination, somewhere.

I liked Gerald's Game better than Get Out, but it wouldn't meet the eligibility requirements (I can't see it as a serious contender, even if it was):

ELIGIBILITY
1. Eligibility for Academy Awards consideration is subject to Rules Two and Three, and to those special
rules approved by the Board of Governors that follow.2. All eligible motion pictures, unless otherwise noted (see Paragraph 9, below), must be:
a. feature length (defined as over 40 minutes),b. publicly exhibited by means of 35mm or 70mm film, or in a 24- or 48-frame progressive scan Digital Cinema format with a minimum projector resolution of 2048 by 1080 pixels, source image format conforming to ST 428-1:2006 D-Cinema Distribution Master – Image Characteristics; image compression (if used) conforming to ISO/IEC 15444-1 (JPEG 2000); and image and sound file formats suitable for exhibition in commercial Digital Cinema sites. (Blu-ray format does not meet Digital Cinema requirements.) The audio in a Digital Cinema Package (DCP) is typically 5.1 or 7.1 channels of discrete audio. The minimum for a non-mono configuration of the audio shall be three channels as Left, Center, Right (a Left/Right configuration is not acceptable in a theatrical environment).
The audio data shall be formatted in conformance with ST 428-2:2006 D-Cinema Distribution Master – Audio Characteristics and ST 428-3:2006 D-Cinema Distribution Master – Audio Channel Mapping and Channel Labeling,
c. for paid admission in a commercial motion picture theater in Los Angeles County,
d. for a qualifying run of at least seven consecutive days, during which period screenings must occur at least three times daily, with at least one screening beginning between 6 p.m. and 10 p.m. daily,
e. advertised and exploited during their Los Angeles County qualifying run in a manner normal and customary to theatrical feature distribution practices, and
f. released within the Awards year deadlines specified in Rule Three.
3. Films that, in any version, receive their first public exhibition or distribution in any manner other than as a theatrical motion picture release will not be eligible for Academy Awards in any category.
Nontheatrical public exhibition or distribution includes but is not limited to:
• Broadcast and cable television
• PPV/VOD
• DVD distribution
• Internet transmission
Motion pictures released in such nontheatrical media on or after the first day of their Los Angeles County qualifying run remain eligible. Also, ten minutes or ten percent of the running time of a film, whichever is shorter, may be shown in a nontheatrical medium prior to the film’s qualifying run.
(See also Paragraph 9 below.)
4. Eligibility is contingent on the receipt by the Academy of a completed Official Screen Credits (OSC)
form, to be signed by the film’s producer or distributor (unless waived by the Academy). DVDs or
DCPs are not accepted in lieu of, or in addition to, the OSC form. The OSC form is accessible online
at the Academy’s Awards Submission site, submissions.oscars.org. The submission shall include:
a. full, complete and authentic screen credits,
b. the name of the Los Angeles County theater where the film has screened, and
c. the dates and times of the Los Angeles County qualifying run.
5. Eligibility for all awards shall first be determined by credits as they appear on the screen and/or as
certified to the Academy by the producing companies, but final determination in any event shall be
made by the Academy. The Academy shall not be bound by any contract or agreement relating to
the sharing or giving of credit, and reserves the right to make its own determination of credit for
purposes of Awards consideration.
Top 4
6. In the event of any dispute concerning credits, the Academy reserves the right to declare any
achievement ineligible or, alternatively, to reject all claims to credit, list credits as being in
controversy, and withhold any award until the dispute is resolved.
7. The alteration of an achievement by changing a picture from the version shown in Los Angeles
County, upon which eligibility is based, shall subject such achievement to the risk of being declared
ineligible by the Board of Governors.
8. Motion pictures from all countries shall be eligible for the annual awards listed in Rule One Paragraph
3, as long as they satisfy the requirements of the other applicable rules, and contain English language
subtitles if released in a foreign language.
9. Exceptions to the eligibility requirements and methods of qualifying listed in Rules Two and Three
appear in the Special Rules for the Animated Feature Film award (see Rule Seven), the Documentary
awards (see Rule Eleven), the Foreign Language Film award (see Rule Thirteen), the Music awards
(see Rule Fifteen), and the Short Film awards (see Rule Nineteen).
10. The Academy shall resolve all questions of eligibility and rules.

The film that really deserved more attention from the Academy (though I think it just barely met the eligibility requirements for last year's awards, not this year's) was A Monster Calls, another genre crossover. If it were eligible for this year's award, then that would've been my pick, by a hair, over The Shape of Water.